Counter-Interpretation – affirmatives should misread the resolution in order to subvert the scripting of productive laborers onto asian bodies

By drawing attention to ethnic variation in our analysis of the experiences of AAPI subgroups (CARE, 2013), we hope to refute the model minority stereotype and call for additional research on how immigration, socioeconomic status, and schooling experiences contribute to disparities in educational outcomes. Omi and Winant (2015) describe this type of analysis as a process of ‘‘rearticulation’’ of racial groups and suggest that redefining racial categories is one way to counter the effects of racial inequality: This process of rearticulation produces new subjectivity by making use of information and knowledge already present in the subject’s mind. [. . .] we define rearticulation as a practice of discursive reorganization or reinterpretation of ideological themes and interests already present in subjects’ consciousness, such that these elements obtain new meaning or coherence. (p. 165) In the following sections we investigate if and how a disaggregated analysis of discipline patterns among AAPIs can facilitate the process of rearticulation. Central to rearticulation is the acknowledgement of how power manifests in the racial order. As previously stated, the seemingly arbitrary process of categorization is a social manifestation of White dominance, a way in which White has retained its place at the top of the racial hierarchy by shifting who is considered White and who gains the privileges of that Whiteness. Thus, while we advance rearticulation of race categories in order to ‘‘highlight racial differences and particularities’’ (Omi & Winant, 2015, p. 260), this process also ‘‘acknowledges the social structures and practices of race and racism: the vast fabric of inclusion and exclusion, advantage and disadvantage, and power and powerlessness that are built into the social system’’ (Omi & Winant, 2015, p. 261). As critical race theory highlights, it is necessary to challenge ‘‘the traditional claims of [. . .] objectivity, meritocracy, color and gender blindness, race and gender neutrality, and equal opportunity’’ (Solorzano, 1998, p. 122); thus examining racial categorization is not only a practice in pointing out unseen disparities but also an effort toward challenging the dominant ideology of a racial hierarchy that maintains White dominance. In education, critical race theory has pointed out the contradictory ways educational systems operate, with potential to oppress and marginalize coexisting with potential to emancipate and empower (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Tate, 1997). By rearticulating racial categories through the examination of a mechanism that oppresses and marginalizes—school discipline—we seek to facilitate a greater understanding of contesting systemic racial inequality in education. While racial formation theory is useful for understanding why and how existing racial categories misrepresent the experiences of AAPI subgroups, it does not explain the presence of disparities between groups that may be evident when a more detailed analysis is possible. For this reason, we draw on Carter and Welner’s (2013) framing of opportunity gaps to illuminate the discipline gap further. Departing from the conventional academic focus on achievement gaps between groups—captured by disparities in test scores, graduation, and failure, among other outcomes—Carter and Welner advance a theoretical shift to opportunity gaps, which they write, draws ‘‘our attention from outcomes to inputs—to the deficiencies in the foundational components of societies, schools, and communities that produce significant differences in educational—and ultimately socioeconomic—outcomes’’ (p. 3). Within these systems, an ‘‘education debt,’’ or ‘‘forgone schooling resources that we could have (should have) been investing in (primarily) low income kids, which deficit leads to a variety of social problems’’ (Ladson-Billings, 2006, p. 6), accrues that produces disparities. From this point of view, racial gaps in achievement—between broader racial groups, and between smaller subgroups—are influenced by a long history of exclusion from public education, unequal opportunities to access quality schooling, and uneven investment in students of color, to name but a few (Ladson-Billings, 2006). In this article, we examine another component that produces achievement gaps—school discipline. Determining whether particular groups are disproportionately affected by school discipline practices is essential to ensuring that all students have access to educational opportunities (Losen & Gillespie, 2012), thus equitable opportunity to achieve (Ladson-Billings, 2006). As we show in this analysis of state-level data, patterns of ethnic differentiation in school discipline can expose gaps in educational opportunities. In illuminating these gaps in opportunity, our hope is that our study will contribute to efforts to rearticulate the boundaries of race in ways that make it possible to better understand discipline disparities and easier to address evidence of discrimination and mistreatment.